What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti?
> What do you say to the people in Minneapolis demanding justice for the murder of Alex Pretti? Keep pushing your state investigators. Work to flip the House. And keep protesting and disrupting the browncoats. Alex Pretti did more to stop ICE than anyone e.g. killing an individual ICE agent would do.
Brownshirts. I believe "browncoats" refers to a now-extinct space opera fandom from a few decades ago.
You've basically just said anyone who doesn't hold the "approved" opinion is wrong and then you called them names. But you wrapped it in extra words so that it's less flagrant. Did you ever think that maybe people do in fact believe what they say they believe?
Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong. I don't see myself as having called anyone names; rather, I said that the point was so banal that the only conversation you're likely to see is from people who get dopamine hits from taking the edgy other side of the argument.
You said they were "abnormal" and "trolls" but you dressed it up in the sort of snooty language that HN expects you to dress it up in.
Civil violence is the backstop of literally every societal system. While it would be better if the systems work, civil violence is what happens if they don't and tends to increase until they do.
In high school the 90s, I learned about what the founding fathers said about violence. But, I guess that's too 18th century now.
Except they only won because UK was too busy spending money on a way to stop the French. Like 1812 when the Brits weren't busy with the French they easily came in and burnt the US capital as punishment for burning the Canadian one. It's not that the British army suddenly got a lot stronger; they just weren't busy fighting on two continents. That said, civil disobedience is largely pointless. We're in a capitalistic s…
I meant more that we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights if it wasn't for Patrick Henry.
Before passing judgment consider that while you may have the privilege of posting from a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny, that's not necessarily the case for others.
Tyranny of a bunch of rich white men having to pay taxes lol. There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk.
>There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk.
Ah, yes. All Slaveholders. I once toured John Adam's former plantation. It's expansive. Really puts Monticello to shame.
(the joke here being that John Adams was a practicing lawyer in state that didn't even have slavery).
Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong. I don't see myself as having called anyone names; rather, I said that the point was so banal that the only conversation you're likely to see is from people who get dopamine hits from taking the edgy other side of the argument.
You said they were "abnormal" and "trolls" but you dressed it up in the sort of snooty language that HN expects you to dress it up in. Civil violence is the backstop of literally every societal system. While it would be better if the systems work, civil violence is what happens if they don't and tends to increase until they do.
Except they only won because UK was too busy spending money on a way to stop the French. Like 1812 when the Brits weren't busy with the French they easily came in and burnt the US capital as punishment for burning the Canadian one. It's not that the British army suddenly got a lot stronger; they just weren't busy fighting on two continents. That said, civil disobedience is largely pointless. We're in a capitalistic s…
I meant more that we wouldn't have the Bill of Rights if it wasn't for Patrick Henry.
There is a super interesting and complicated discussion to have about the pragmatics and morality of concerted military action versus stochastic civil violence. Unfortunately, thread conditions on HN aren't conducive to it; the discussion will instantly devolve (via people joining in) to valence arguments about the cause of this or that campaign of violence. I genuinely think you'd need a moderation regime designed from the ground up to support a productive conversation about this topic, which, for good reasons, HN doesn't provide.